5 ms·

There is absolutely no proof of that. What they where asking for was keys to every lock in the world. It would have given them unprecedented power to do whateve

• ikeboy 11y ago
  They were willing to hand over the phone to Apple and allow all work to take place on Apple premises. How does that affect other phones?
  • woodman 11y ago
    So have you not heard that this would set a legal precedent? Apple would get pestered until they finally create an automatic gateway for turn key security breaking, not unlike the wiretap portals setup by telecoms - or the frequently abused youtube DMCA mechanisms.
    • ikeboy 11y ago
      It only sets a precedent that they can give phones to Apple and have them unlock them, as long as it's possible for them to do so. If Apple decides to build a general backdoor and hand it to the government that's entirely their decision.
      • woodman 11y ago
        > It only sets a precedent... Yeah, it "only" sets a precedent that the government can compel a company to reverse all the work put into securing a product, no possible market driven unintended consequences there. > If Apple decides... Classic victim blaming, "decision" is the wrong word to use here. Constant negative reinforcement leads to conditioned responses - not decisions.
      • jfoster 11y ago
        In fact, it also only sets precedent if they have to legally force Apple to do it. Apple could've used their discretion to comply in this particular case, avoiding courts, and avoiding legal precedents being set.
    • jfoster 11y ago
      It wouldn't set a legal precedent unless a court ruled on it. It would only have come to that if Apple continued to decline the FBI's request.
      • woodman 11y ago
        Again, victim blaming. How is that any different from the false choice "We can do this the hard way, or the easy way"? Have you considered what will happen to the number of such requests as devices continue to become more secure?
        • ikeboy 11y ago
          As devices become more secure, Apple will no longer be able to unlock them. If you put a backdoor into your phones, you should expect to have to use it.
          • woodman 11y ago
            > As devices become more secure, Apple will no longer be able to unlock them. That is only true if revoking trust is the only thing left to do to increase iphone security against every potential bad actor. That isn't the case, and that leaves plenty of time to pester Apple with unlocking phones collected in every investigation from now until then. > If you put a backdoor into your phones, you should expect to have to use it. What law is that, the All Writs act? That is what was being tested, because not everybody shares your certainty about it. The moral problem of the forced labor of an unrelated party is enough to make me disagree. Also, that logic could easily be used to justify the forced inclusion of a backdoor in an otherwise secure device. You can't have it both ways, a secure device and a device manufactured by a company that can be legally compelled to do whatever the state deems "necessary or appropriate".
            • ikeboy 11y ago
              I don't think labor should be forced, but data should be accessible. Apple had the keys to use the backdoor, and they should have been forced to choose between using them to sign software, or handing them over and letting the FBI sign it themselves. Apple would prefer to sign it themselves, so they can effectively be forced to do so. I disagree that they can force the inclusion of a backdoor using the same logic. The reason I think they can compel action is that the real thing they want from Apple is information, I.e. the key. Apple can get out of revealing the key by using it themselves.